Please try to describe in words what you are trying to do, rather than expecting people to deduce it from an example. Also, there's no need for all the (* Input 10 ==< *) stuff - code in a code block will be understood to be input, it doesn't need extra signposts.
–
Simon WoodsJun 18 '13 at 8:37

@SimonWoods ok, I'll develop it in the future, when they are not needed. Signposts are conceived to use in such case. How to combine Input[11] and Input[12] to get the result. As well as the case: multiple output results are pictures which do not follow the input but in the end of the post being a total image. This is one prevous example. mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/26932/6648
–
HyperGroupsJun 18 '13 at 9:19

@SimonWoods Sometimes, (maybe always...) I'm poor in judging how much words to use, and how much codes to show. In this case, Kuba's answer and comment catched on my this post's question broadly.
–
HyperGroupsJun 18 '13 at 9:22

@SimonWoods I need your suggestions and comments about this question in formatting. meta.mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/1027/
–
HyperGroupsJun 19 '13 at 3:59

@Kuba You should not! If this kind of programmatic string replacement (by which I mean code may be executed as part of the right-hand side) were not available your method would be a good alternative.
–
Mr.Wizard♦Jun 18 '13 at 12:07

Yes, the fact that methods are different heartens :) But in such questions I usually start from replacement rules, this time I have failed. :) Big +1 for ++count[#]&/@
–
KubaJun 18 '13 at 12:11

Second type conversion:

Basic idea is to extract terms inside "[ ]" and apply my previous functions to them.
In Your question "A" is modyfied only inside "[ ]" and B is not "[]"-sensitive so later You can just apply first function.

good to use Fold. In conversion 2, both A and B(even C, though no more B or C in "[ ]") could be sensitive to "[ ]", we can control them. or Ignore the string in "[ ]", my previous question maybe related little: mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/27144/…
–
HyperGroupsJun 18 '13 at 7:09

The use of Except like that in the example Remove tags in Html. One about formatting: Why do you(and some people)do not comment out the output in the blockquotes? with (**) we can directly copy the whole codes/answer to Notebook, and Divide cells to evaluate.
–
HyperGroupsJun 18 '13 at 10:20

@HyperGroups I assume You do not have to copy output. All is in the input. Evaluate it and test if it match what I have put in blockquotes. But indeed, I usually have doubts about my formatting.
–
KubaJun 18 '13 at 10:24

Yes, If not copy outputs, I have to copy Input codes one by one when there are Ouputs between them. And I confused with formatting much, in one of my previous answer, my blockquotes was edited by comment out. mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/26868/6648
–
HyperGroupsJun 18 '13 at 10:32

@HyperGroups There is a discussion on meta about formatting (which I am not able to find now) There are couple of ways to format output. This one is preseted there by Artes.
–
KubaJun 18 '13 at 10:40

Just for fun, here's a modified version of Mr Wizard's code which deals with the square brackets in a single StringReplace. The idea is to make the matching of "A" conditonal on a boolean symbol whose value flips between true and false everytime a "[" or "]" is encountered. The flipping is done inside a Condition which always fails, so that the brackets themselves don't get replaced. (Thanks to Mr Wizard for pointing out that the condition will fail if the test evaluates to Null.)

It's obviously not as flexible or general as nesting StringReplace but might be pleasing to those who like complex patterns...

That's pretty clever! I don't know that I would be comfortable using this in practice, but that could be only because I haven't been exposed to it before and I need time for it to be familiar. It's certainly the style of coding I appreciate however, so a hearty +1.
–
Mr.Wizard♦Jun 19 '13 at 11:39

Mathematica is a registered trademark of Wolfram Research, Inc. While the mark is used herein with the limited permission of Wolfram Research, Stack Exchange and this site disclaim all affiliation therewith.